Madeleine McCann

[Abby Normal]

We don't know that. The timings are fuzzy.

Although, I doubt it was him, because if the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I suspect it happened before the 3rd May 2007. I can't imagine that the McCanns were able to construct the abduction narrative with their Tapas friends on the spot like that. This had to have been planned ahead of time.

Yes there timings are fuzzy very. And the tapas seven didnt help cover up i dont think..kate and or gerry killed her sometime before dinner, got rid of her body and staged the abduction.

also see my previous post about more disinformation by the mccann enablers abou the book.

[Sunny Delight]

We don't know that. The timings are fuzzy.

Although, I doubt it was him, because if the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I suspect it happened before the 3rd May 2007. I can't imagine that the McCanns were able to construct the abduction narrative with their Tapas friends on the spot like that. This had to have been planned ahead of time.

And yet Madeleine was at the creche the day of the disappearance. She was collected at 5:30pm. Gerry according to the tennis coach finished playing at 7pm. He then returned to the apartment. So by the time he gets back to the apartment he and Kate have 90 minutes to get rid of her body if she overdosed before he came back- the body is either either hidden in the apartment or the gardens surrounding. They then go to the Tapas restaurant at 8:30pm. They know Madeleine is dead but they are so incredibly cold and both are sociopaths that have no remorse so no one notices anything is up. They allow Matt Oldfield to enter the apartment and check on the kids at 9:30pm after he offers to for Kate and they hope he goes into find Madeleine gone as that is 101 according to Abby. He reports back all is well. They don't even flinch. Then at 10pm or 10:05pm as verified by those dining with the McCanns Kate goes to check. She knows Madeleine is dead so opens the shutters and window of the bedroom to stage a break in then sits in the apartment for 10 minutes before deciding enough time has passed to be believable. She then sprints to the Tapas shouting 'Madeleines gone'. Leaving the other children in the apartment knowing they would be just fine. Then they enlist the help of everyone and anyone to search the apartment and surrounding gardens. Knowing full well Madeleine is hidden there but just hoping she isn't found. Then the Police are rang shortly after at 10:40pm as verified by the Police records.


Or alternatively the Tapas 7 were so pissed that they couldn't remember what time it was or who they were even talking to and Gerry has time to sneak off and get Madeleines body hidden in the garden or apartment and carry her limp body through the streets of Luz where seen by the Smiths(only Martin thought the man 'may' have been Gerry) he then proceeds to a distance out at the coast where he throws Madeleines body into the ocean. He then returns to the table as if nothing has happened and the Tapas crew are so smashed now they didnt even notice him gone.

Or they leave Madeleines body until the next morning transport it to a freezer somewhere- they leave it there for 25 days before renting a car, going to the freezer and retrieving the body. They then take it somewhere else and dispose of it.

And none of this sounds absolutely BLOODY MENTAL to either you or Abby and not a shred of proof to substantiate these claims. Seriously read what I wrote and ask yourself- what the hell am I thinking?????

[JeffHamm]

It was proven to be libellous, you mean? That's not quite the same thing.

Fair enough, though I understood that libel doesn't apply if the claims are true.

Also, after posting, I found that a higher court has since over-tuned the decision, I believe if I understood it correctly, on the grounds that the book was presenting the police case (so it didn't matter if what the police believed at the time was correct or not, his presentation was considered describing what the police believed not the accuracy of those beliefs; or something like that).

Found a better article on it, and it was overturned as a protection of freedom of speech https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/...ban-overturned

And, while a bit of an aside from the book, the following is perhaps of more interest "Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent."

Again, an opinion by someone with no vested interest to protect the McCanns, and who has access to the actual information. It's this sort of thing that indicates to me that the McCanns are probably not involved, while others will conclude that Portugal's attorney general is another enabler.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Attorney general lol. Aka king of the settlement. Lord of the plea bargain. Prince of the check collector.
Anything but take a case to trial. You know like do there job. What ajoke

[Sunny Delight]

Attorney general lol. Aka king of the settlement. Lord of the plea bargain. Prince of the check collector.
Anything but take a case to trial. You know like do there job. What ajoke

How much did your idol Amarel get for writing his book one year after Madeleines disappearance? How much did he get for the TV show? Has he ever produced one iota of credible evidence to back up the cavedar dog? What a joke.

[Harry D]

Fair enough, though I understood that libel doesn't apply if the claims are true.

Goncalo was sued because his book implied that the McCanns were behind Madeline's disappearance. That's not false, rather unproven.

It doesn't mean that the whole book is discredited. It's a fact that Eddie the sniffer dog was alerted to cuddle cat on separate instances.

[Abby Normal]

Goncalo was sued because his book implied that the McCanns were behind Madeline's disappearance. That's not false, rather unproven.

It doesn't mean that the whole book is discredited. It's a fact that Eddie the sniffer dog was alerted to cuddle cat on separate instances.

Bingo harry
and the mccans lost a libel suit against him and have and still have to pay him thousands.

[Yatish]

I don't really have any skin in the game here, and my mind has swung one way and the other regarding the McCanns, and what happened.

One thing that has bugged me is that after the 2013 BBC Crimewatch feature where DCI Redwood was basically making the "Smith sighting the prime suspect" (after the Tanner man came forward to reveal himself); the front page of the Find Madeleine website has never been updated to reflect this - it still shows the Tanner sighting. There has been no overt publicity about this. No huge interviews. Even the updated edition of Kate McCann's book briefly mentions the Smith sighting, but gives no replica E-fits of the sightings in it's pages.

Considering Scotland Yard in a determined fashion stated that the timeline now was leading towards a just before 10:00am abduction, surely this E-fit sighting by 5 members of the Smith family would be red hot and the McCann's would be shouting from the rooftops to find this man?

Just found that unusual behaviour.


Edit: Also that specific E-fit was "sat on" for 5 years. I just can't get my head around that...

[Yatish]

Another point was that in that same BBC Crimewatch program of 2013, at 10:00pm When Kate McCann discovered her daughter was missing, she states that she saw the bedroom door was opened further than expected. When she went to close it to a narrower aspect, the gust of wind from the open window caused the door to slam shut. She then opened the door and saw that her daughter was missing.


So from the above, if the door is open futher than expected during your check of the children, you would surely look beyond the door (to complete your check), and not try to close it more? In effect if the door had not slammed shut, you would walk away back to the restaurant, and having not in effect checked on your children and seen if they are ok?



Both of my points above are within the context of this program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

[Darryl Kenyon]

So from the above, if the door is open futher than expected during your check of the children, you would surely look beyond the door (to complete your check), and not try to close it more? In effect if the door had not slammed shut, you would walk away back to the restaurant, and having not in effect checked on your children and seen if they are ok?

Yes, I have to say this has stuck with me as well Yatish. It's almost as if she is saying I went to check on my children but didn't check if they where in their beds until after the door slammed shut IE If that had not happened she wouldn't have done a proper check on them at all.
Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, I have to say this has stuck with me as well Yatish. It's almost as if she is saying I went to check on my children but didn't check if they where in their beds until after the door slammed shut IE If that had not happened she wouldn't have done a proper check on them at all.
Regards Darryl

It has stuck with me also but not sure how it is an indicator of guilt? I think the McCanns and their friends were not 'checking' on the kids- well some maybe were but others maybe just stood outside the room and listened to hear if everything was quiet. It seems likely it was more bad parenting rather than anything sinister. Or maybe more complacent bad parenting.

[JeffHamm]

Goncalo was sued because his book implied that the McCanns were behind Madeline's disappearance. That's not false, rather unproven.

It doesn't mean that the whole book is discredited. It's a fact that Eddie the sniffer dog was alerted to cuddle cat on separate instances.

I suppose it would depend upon whether unproven or unsupported is the description used. I had taken the original finding in favor of the McCann's as an indication that unsupported, rather than unproven, would be the more accurate description, otherwise the court (I'm assuming) would not have found in favor of the McCanns (as unproven would not be sufficient grounds to impose a ban on publication - but unsupported would). As the case was over-turned on the grounds of free speech and the right to voice his opinion (also an important issue), the higher court's reversal of the finding is based upon a different legal issue, leaving the original court's evaluation as substatiated (the allegations are unsupported) but the right to free speech and expression of opinion was considered the more important legal consideration.

I'm not a legal expert and the above just reflects my attempt to fit all the parts together without choosing a conclusion first.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It has stuck with me also but not sure how it is an indicator of guilt? I think the McCanns and their friends were not 'checking' on the kids- well some maybe were but others maybe just stood outside the room and listened to hear if everything was quiet. It seems likely it was more bad parenting rather than anything sinister. Or maybe more complacent bad parenting.

Well, we have to remember the context in which they are checking on the kids. Nobody, except the most paranoid, checks because they want to make sure the kids are still there. They're checking to make sure the kids are still asleep because the overwhelming assumption is that the kids haven't been abducted. That's such a rare event that it doesn't factor in until a child is missing. They would be listening for signs of babies needing to be settled, or other such indications that one or more of them are awake. Listening at the door would be what someone would consider sufficient to ensure "They're still all asleep" without running the risk of waking them up. I don't see that as unusual behaviour, or even negligent, because except in very rare circumstances, like this, it's not something one is going to consider. The tragedy, of course, is that when those rare cases do happen, hind sight makes it look like "should have gone into the room and seen the children", but prior to knowing the child is missing that hindsight isn't available. We all know now that Maddie was missing, but at the time the checking was going on, there was no reason at all to consider that possibility. Waking the children by entering the room, though, would be a far more probable concern. Doors open more than one expects, after someone else has checked on the kids though, would at the time initially just be assumed to be "the door was left open last time" or some such thing.

All of that changes only after the point she's noticed to be gone. But up until that point, everything that is described seems very much in line with what the families said they were doing.

Why Maddie was missing, and when she went missing, is of course the mystery. But all of the above, things like listening at the door, etc, sounds just like the behaviour of people who don't know she's missing and who have no reason to suspect that is even a possibility. It could, of course, also be what people who know she's not there might do, but that's why spending a lot of time speculating on it is not informative with regards to what happened - the conclusion must be made first to then guide the interpretation of the evidence to make it fit the conclusion rather than the evidence leads to an interpretation that informs what the conclusion must be.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Yeah number 5 above another misleading falsehood from the mccann enablers. The dna in the boot of the car could be maddies or it could be a mix of the mom and dad. And of course theyre going to twist blood being found in the aprtment to just dna.
its One blatent erroneous statement, misleading misnomer and twisted fact after another and why im not wasting my time responding any more.

to me its rather obvious something happened to maddie on or near that couch, and the portugese police were all over it. But of course tje mccann enablers will just try to depict them as keystone cops who tried to frame the mccans from the beginning. Oh well worked well for OJ.

The final reports concerning DNA found failed to find any match with Maddeline in any of the material recovered from either the apartment or the rented car. Also, there was no blood found in either the apartment or the rented car; not just not Maddie's blood, they found no blood from anyone at all (The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Ep.5 around minute 27; not surprisingly, the former lead investigator of the book then suggests a conspiracy theory explanation "the lab manipulated the results", but yah, he's the one to trust). They did not find blood, they did not find Maddie's DNA. Of course, not finding DNA and/or blood does not mean the McCann's are innocent, it means, though, that to say they found DNA or blood is wrong, factually wrong. It also means that if you think the McCann's are guilty because the press said there was blood and/or DNA, then you've been misled and your conclusion is based upon factually wrong information. I'm not defending the McCann's, I'm pointing out where the press misled the public. And, I'm pointing out, that without DNA, with no signs of blood or any violence, both innocent and guilty are possible. Yes, I personally lean towards innocent because of the choices and behaviour of those who have seen the evidence without it being skewed and distorted, and they have publicly said the McCann's are not involved, but my opinion on that regards is on a take it or leave basis. But their behaviour, and their public statements, are entirely consistent with the above presentation of the lab results, so while one could dismiss the presentation in the above Documentary as "biased for the McCann", then one is left creating all sorts of reasons to dismiss all the other indictors as well, which then starts to reflect the difference between "unconvinced" and "unconvincable." The former is fine, some are more cautious than others, the latter reflects biased thinking through which the truth is never found. The thing is, though, that we don't get to make up the data and evidence, and the data and evidence was "blood and DNA was tested for, and no results matching human blood from anyone, or Maddie's DNA were found, in the apartment or the rented car". Even the lead Portugese Police officer admits that is what the lab found, hence his resorting to conspiracy theories to make it go away.

The dog handler is also interviewed and he points out as well that the dog alerts are not evidence of blood or a body, they are leads to investigate. Of course, not all leads bear fruit, some end up with innocent explanations, so without corroborating evidence of blood (which was not found) or a body (which was not found), the alerts mean nothing.

The only thing that made the McCann's look guilty was the press reports of blood, and bodies, and Maddie's DNA in the boot of the car. But all of that was fictitious, and the actual analysis of the materials showed exactly the opposite - no evidence of any blood, no evidence of Madie having been in the car, and nothing to back up the presence of a body having been anywhere in that apartment. And once you realize that evidence isn't real, then there is nothing to implicate them, and if one is looking to find justice for Maddie, or even better would be to find Maddie alive, then continuing to focus on the McCann's is never going to do that. Sure, if there's lines of investigation still available with regards to the McCann's then follow them too.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

no evidence of Madie having been in the car,

I thought the DNA evidence proved inconclusive?